Two-party-preferred votes since 1937

UNTIL now, the standard resource for votes at historical election results has been this AEC page starting in 1949. Often this is mistaken for the full record, so people write things like “the biggest win ever” when they mean since 1949.

But we’ve been holding federal elections since 1901, major parties have been around since about 1911 and preferential voting since 1918.

I have produced a table that has two-party-preferred numbers (most of them estimates) starting in 1937. Most of the numbers come from Malcolm Mackerras.

Gathering/estimating data that begins in 1919 (the first election under preferential voting) is high on my to-do list. Those earlier elections include 1931, Labor’s worst under preferential voting, with less 40 per cent after preferences (including Lang Labor). And the one before, in 1929, an ALP win with perhaps 55 per cent of the vote, the party’s second-best result ever, after 1943.

(It is problematic to describe 1931 as the Coalition’s best-ever result because there was no Coalition agreement.)

So more election data to come. But for the time being there is now no excuse for mistaking the post Word War II record for the full record. Just post 1934 ....

Tables of historical two-party-preferred results, and swings, are here.

Your Comments

Given the long-accepted narrative of Labor being in the wilderness from 1949-72, unwanted by the people and lost due to their own schisms and ineptness etc., the national 2PP for 1954 and 1961 are quite the eye opener!

Peter BrentWed 09 Oct 13 (11:43am)

Yes, it complicates the story a bit.

Jeremy BuxtonWed 09 Oct 13 (12:27pm)

In 1954 a number of seats were left uncontested, mostly safe Coalition seats. This also complicates the picture.

Peter BrentWed 09 Oct 13 (01:20pm)

I noted this underneath the first table.

Sneaky PeteWed 09 Oct 13 (12:50pm)

Thanks for the table, it certainly helps put things in context. Considering there were only a handful of worse 2pp results for Labor I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if Rudd hadn’t “saved some of the furniture”. Any guesses as to the probably 2pp if Gillard remained PM?

RJWed 09 Oct 13 (12:53pm)

Hmm. What’s also striking is that the `72 win in particular was pretty slender (9 seats - though in a smaller parliament) despite a fairly healthy 52.7 2PP.

Bar BarWed 09 Oct 13 (05:51pm)

Mumble, again you have based your table on the ALP TPP vote, not the coalition’s. Naturally your commentary then centres on Labor perspective.

Why didn’t you use the coalition’s vote as your visual example and centre your commentary on it? Particularly given that coalition is the government now and received many more votes in last election than Labor did?.

Michael JonesWed 09 Oct 13 (10:50pm)

I can’t help wondering what happened in those uncontested seats. Did voters just do a senate paper or did they just put a 1 in the only candidates box - Saddam style!

GraemeWed 09 Oct 13 (11:14pm)

That’s a great resource Peter.
I suppose ‘BarBar’ objects to atlases placing the northern hemisphere at the top. Gotta have a reference point - since there is one ALP but have been numerous conservative parties of government it’s reasonable to cite Labor votes.

So if we’d had a PR system with a premium for the TPP winner, Labor would have been in office 5 or so more years, or a slight majority rather than minority of the time?

CompassThu 10 Oct 13 (06:57am)

Bar Bar, maybe it’s because the conservative side has chopped and changed more than Labor, so it’s easier to write ALP TPP than Nationalist/Country/UAP/Liberal/National TPP.

RegThu 10 Oct 13 (12:54pm)

Bar Bar says:
Wed 09 Oct 13 (05:51pm)

Mumble, again you have based your table on the ALP TPP vote, not the coalition’s. Naturally your commentary then centres on Labor perspective.

I ask this question to myself on every topic he writes unless it can be a detrimental story about the Libs it is always the Labor
perspective, I can only conclude he did his thesis on Labor or.....

Bar BarThu 10 Oct 13 (12:54pm)

Graeme/Compass ..

You think it would be beyond the wit of Dr Peter Brent to provide tables featuring the conservative TPPV? I don’t, but perhaps I have been overestimating his talents for all these years ....

AlanThu 10 Oct 13 (02:32pm)

Bar Bar, I’m sure you have the wit to deduce Nationalist/Country/UAP/Liberal/National TPP from the ALP TPP withou having it spoon fed to you.

Post A Comment

We welcome your comments. All comments should be concise,
focus specifically on the topic for discussion and are submitted
for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited.
Comments that are derogatory toward the blogger or at other comments,
or those which may potentially incite racial hatred or violence,
are defamatory or in contempt of court, will not be published.
Please provide a screen name and
suburb/location - these will be published
.
We also require a working email address - not for publication,
but for verification.

* Required fields

Screen Name:* Required

Location:

Email Address:* Required

Your Comments:* Required

Email To A Friend

* Required fields

Subject:* Required

Recipient's Email:* Required

Your Name:* Required

Your Email:* Required

Your Email:* Required

Information provided on this page will not be used for any other purpose
than to notify the recipient of the article you have chosen.

Share This Article

From here you can use the Social Web links to save 'Two-party-preferred votes since 1937' to a social
bookmarking site.

Peter Brent

Peter Brent started Mumble in 2001; the old site can be found at http://mumble.com.au. He mainly goes on about the numbers in electoral behaviour and voters' motivations that drive them. In 2009 he finished a PhD in political science which dealt with electoral administration, a topic he also sometimes goes on about. You can follow him on Twitter at @mumbletwits.